Chapter 5 – Introduction to the Pentateuch

Childs begins his introduction to the Pentateuch with the history of the modern critical study of the Pentateuch, with the motivation that such history is indispensable for methodology and crucial for evaluating the continuing debate. He goes through the literary critical method, the form-critical method, archaeological method and finish with a postscript to the history of pentateuchal criticism. In tracing the history Childs observes that in the early part of the 20th century the opposition to biblical criticism from the established church and synagogue was almost universal, but by the middle of the century biblical criticism had been widely accepted, with opposition only from conservative groups in the periphery. Childs presents several reflections on this change of opinion, but concludes that the rise and fall of the Biblical Theology movement of the 50s and 60s has again raised the question whether the church’s relation to biblical criticism is settled, and whether “the reigning scholarly consensus” has only covered over many basic theological problems.[1]

The critical debate concerning the scope of the literary unit of Pentateuch is a continuum, whether the term Hexateuch (Gen-Jos) should replace that of Pentateuch (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Smend, Eissfeldt, von Rad), or if Deuteronomy should be separated from the first four books, forming a Tetrateuch (Noth). There is also a minority of scholars (Höscher, Schulte, Freedman) who have tried to expand the unity to include the historical books. Finally an increasing number of scholars (Fohrer, Rendtorff) favor a return to the terminology of a Pentateuch. In the debate of source criticism uncertainty regarding the criteria for determining literary strands is growing. The uncertainty becomes clear when individual sources of the Pentateuch (the Yahvist, the Elohist, and the Priestly) are discussed. Childs conclusion is that scholars have not reach an agreement regarding the classical source division, and efforts should instead be invested in establishing “a fresh consensus around a new proposal.” The last topic Childs mentions concerning the present state of the critical debate is form criticism and traditio-criticism, whose present debate (1979) regarding the Pentateuch is characterized by the dissolution of the older consensus and a search for new questions and answers (e.g. Alt, von Rad, Noth, Bright, Cross).[2]

The canonical approach to the study of the Pentateuch is described by Childs as a post-critical alternative.[3] Childs does not deny that historical critical method is useable at times, but maintains that to study the history of Hebrew literature is a different undertaking then studying the Pentateuch as canonical scriptures. The first issue that Childs establishes regarding the Pentateuch as canon is clear editorial evidence for a five divisions in the Pentateuchal material. He also sees a close inner relationship of the three middle books (Ex-Num). Regarding Genesis, the book was conceived by the final redactor as the introduction to the story of Israel, beginning with Exodus. The role of Deuteronomy is difficult to determined, but the final editor of the Pentateuch seems to have understood its role as a commentary to the preceding law. Childs’ conclusion is that Pentateuch is a purposeful whole, that established Israel’s understanding of its faith as Torah. These first five books constituted the grounds of Israel’s life under God and how the Mosaic tradition should be understood. Childs adds to this that also the promises of the land are forming the different parts of the Pentateuch into one continuous story. In sum, Childs says, “a theological force which reflects a knowledge of the whole Pentateuch has given it a final order.”[4]

Critical scholarship is virtually unanimous in denying the Mosaic authorship while conservative scholarship defends it. Childs argues however that the question of authorship has not been correctly formulated by either side because the issue has been treated apart from its canonical function. In the Pentateuch Moses’ writing activity is closely tied to the receiving the divine law of Sinai, and throughout the rest of the Old Testament the identification of the divine law with Moses’ writing is continued. There is no clear reference in the Old Testament which connects Genesis to Moses, but in Jewish tradition he became the author when the unity of the entire Pentateuch was assumed. Old Testament canon clearly assigns an important role to Moses, but still much material in the canonical Pentateuch is later than the age of Moses. The Old Testament does not explain this directly, but for Childs it seems clear that the authorship of Moses functioned from a very early period as a norm by which to test the tradition’s authority. Childs says: “The claim of Mosaic authorship therefore functioned theologically within the community to establish the continuity of the faith of successive generations with that which had once been delivered to Moses at Sinai.”[5]

[1] Childs., 112–19.
[2] Ibid., 119–27.
[3] The canonical approach as a post-critical alternative seeks to do two things: 1) To take seriously both the successes and failures in the history of scholarship, and 2) to mount a case for a very different approach to the study of the Pentateuch.
[4] Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 127–32.
[5] Ibid., 132–35.

Chapter 4: Text and Canon

In chapter four Childs deals with “Text and Canon”. He does so by discussing: 1) The nature of the problem, 2) History of the discipline, 3) The goals of Old Testament textual criticism, 4) Canon och text, 5) Goal and method of a canonical approach to text criticism, 6) Masoretic text and canonical text, 7) The pre-stabilization period in Old testament textual history, 8) The text-critical task. Childs purpose with this chapter is to discuss the problem of text criticism in relation to canon. The discipline of Old Testament criticism raises a whole list of issues in relation to the canonical approach, e.g.: What are the similarities and differences between the literary and textual development of a canonical writing? What are the goals of textual criticism? Is it possible to speak of a canonical Old Testament text in the light of the multiplicity of textual traditions? Why should the Christian church be committed in any way to the authority of the Masoretic text?

Childs reviews the history of modern Old Testament text criticism up to the publication of his Introduktion in 1979. Studies of textual problems extend far back into the ancient period, and include the rabbis and Masoretes, the church fathers and various interpretations in various translations. But these early activity with the text were of different sort and concern than the modern discipline of text criticism. Different textual traditions co-exist and the debate regarding the history of the Old Testament text is ongoing, but Childs points out that in some major areas a consensus have emerged. About the authoritative role of the masoretic text (MT) he says: 1) Behind the apparently monolithic structure of the MT lay a long history of textual development in which the state of the text was in great fluidity; 2) The authoritative role of the proto-Masoretic tradition derived from a variety of historical factors many of which remain unknown; 3) Long after the process of stabilization had begun, a considerable amount of textual fluidity continued to be tolerated within Jewish communities.[1]

What then is the goal of Old Testament textual criticism? Childs explains that this question illustrates the problematic dimension of modern Old Testament text criticism: “The basic issue at stake is a methodological one. On what level is the Old Testament text to be reconstructed? The following approaches answers the question in different ways: 1) The traditional goal (Klein, Bentzen, Harrison): Textual criticism is the discipline that tries to recover the original copy (autograph) of a piece of literature by comparing its available copies, all of which contains mistakes; 2) The comparative philological method (Driver, Winton Thomas, Dahood): The original text is generally assumed to be the goal, but the method only attempts to reconstruct the most likely original text as intended by its author; 3) Reconstruction of the earliest forms of the text which can be determined by critical analysis of existing textual evidence (Barthélemy, Thompson, Sanders); 4) The method that trusts the Masoretic tradition of the Hebrew text from the tenth century AD.[2]

The history of the Old Testament Canon and the text-critical enterprise are according to Childs closely related. He means that a concern for the text emerged first when the formation of the literature reached a final stage of development within the canonical process. The main process of canonization preceded, but still the two processes overlapped (e.g. Qumran, LXX). This relationship has important exegetical implications. Childs admits that to establish a critical text before one begins the task of interpretation has some pragmatic advantages, but points out that such a exegetical method reverses the historical sequence in the canonical formation of the literature. Instead the literary development shaped the major lines of interpretation which textual development sought to preserve. Thus, there is a danger of misunderstanding when one attempts to establish a text without first understanding its canonical function as a whole. Many decisions in the textual development reflect a type of midrashic exegetical activity within the Bible itself.[3]

The goal of a canonical approach to text criticism is the recovery and understanding of the canonical text. The concern is to describe the literature in relationship to the historic Jewish community, and the goal is not the reconstruction of the most original literary form of the book and textual tradition. Childs proposes that the MT is the vehicle both for recovering and for understanding the canonical text of the Old Testament. He justifies this position in the following way: 1) The Hebrew text was clearly a derivative of a fixed canon. Moreover, it was only the Hebrew text that was stabilized; 2) The masoretic community has continued through history as the living vehicle of the whole canon of Hebrew scripture, and various other Jewish communities began to establish their identity on the basis of the Masoretic text; 3) Only the historic Jewish community whose authoritative text was the Masoretic was the tradent of the oral tradition of the vocalization of the Hebrew Bible; 4) From the Jewish perspective the Greek Bible never had an independent integrity which could contest the Hebrew. The Greek was continually brought into conformity with the Hebrew and never the reverse; 5) The early Christian community of the New Testament never developed a doctrine of scripture apart from the Jewish. The church’s use of the Greek and Latin translations of the Old Testament was valid in its historical context, but theologically provides no grounds for calling into question the ultimate authority of the Hebrew text for church and synagogue.[4]

The canonical text is that Hebrew text of the Jewish community which had become stable in the first century AD. This means there was a pre-stabilization period (a wider toleration of different text type) and a post-stabilization period (only minor variations of the one official text). Childs emphasizes here that the MT is not identical with the canonical text, but is only a vehicle for its recovery. There is no extant canonical text and the canonical text of first-century Judaism is now contained within a post-canonical tradition. Since the first century changes has occurred and a distinction between the MT and the canonical text is therefore necessary. To illustrate this Childs mentions that there is not just one MT, but a variety of different Hebrew texts within the Masoretic tradition. There is also a diversity regarding vocalization and accentuation of the MT. The task then is to text critically recover the stabilized canonical text of the first century through the vehicle of the Masoretic traditions. Childs means that this task of recovering a text close to the 1st century MT is attainable with the support by proto-Masoretic texts from Qumran.[5]

To achive the goal of text criticism according to the canonical model one must study two things: the text before its canonical stabilization and the historical dimension of its development. Childs points out that it is of “crucial importance to recognize” the difference between the pre- and poststabilization phases of the text. During the poststabilzation period the differences in the text tradition are minor, while the pre-stabilization period is characterized by the multiplicity of textual traditions. Because of this complexity of diversity and cause it can be misleading to talk about an original text. The selection of MT in the 1st century as the dominant tradition was the culmination of a long recensional history and the grounds for the selection appear to involve the use of texts in religious groups for liturgical and didactic purposes. Childs concludes that MT did not necessarily get its status for being the best or most original Hebrew text, but the choice was “determined often by broad sociological factors and internal religious conflicts, and not by scholarly textual judgments”.[6]

The attempt by text critic to recover the earliest and best text (Urtext), confronts the problem how to determine the superiority of a text. The historical criterion is often, the best text is the earliest and closest to the original. But Childs means that this assumption fails to take seriously the peculiar features of the canonical biblical literature. The textual history shares in the canonical process, which means that the canonical approach does not attempt to establish a “better” text than the MT, but remains with the canonical text. The approach is however “vitally interested” in all the evidence from the pre-stabilization period, with the aim to understand the canonical text better (e.g. intentional changes). Also, an important part of canonical text criticism is to evaluate the effect of the Hebrew text on its reader within the context of the biblical tradition. Childs argues that the methods of Old Testament text crticism fail in many respects to understand the nature of Hebrew scripture. But he also says that they can serve important roles within the canonical approach, if correctly applied. The methodological issue regarding text and canon is hermeneutical and of great importance for determined how to go by the entire exegetical task.[7]

[1] Childs, 89–92.
[2] Ibid., 92–94.
[3] Ibid., 94–96.
[4] Ibid., 96–99.
[5] Ibid., 100–01.
[6] Ibid., 101–03.
[7] Ibid., 103–06.

Chapter 3: Canon and Criticism

In the third chapter Childs discusses “Canon and Criticism” under six subheadings: 1) Exegesis in a Canonical Context, 2) The Canonical Approach Contrasted with Others, 3) The Final Form of the Text and its Prehistory, 4) The Canonical Process and the Shaping of Scripture, 5) Scripture and Tradition, 6) Canon and Interpretation. The purpose of the chapter is to describe an approach that will attempt to overcome the methodological problems regarding the canon described by Childs in chapter 2. To fulfill this purpose Childs will “relate the canonical form of the Old Testament to the complex history of the literature’s formation.” Childs criticizes the historical critical method in the way it is dealing with the canonical literature of the Old Testament, but emphasizes also that the canonical approach it not a non-historical reading of the Bible. He says: “The whole point of emphasizing the canon is to stress the historical nature of the biblical witness.” [1]

When doing exegesis in a canonical context it is essential to maintain a theological relationship between the people of the Old Covenant and of the New – Childs means that the common canon of the Hebrew Scriptures is the basis for serious relationship. However in the third chapter Childs limits himself to the Hebrew Scriptures, and comes back to the broader issue of exegesis in the final chapter of the book. After having set these parameters, Childs explains that the major task of a canonical analysis of the Hebrew Bible is a descriptive one that focuses its attention on the final form of the text itself. Canonical analysis treats the biblical literature in its own integrity and studies the features of these texts (as records of God’s revelation to his people along with Israel’s response) in relation to their theological and religious usage within the historical community of ancient Israel. The canonical method is thus not an attempt to apply exterior dogmatic categories on the biblical text, but to work within the interpretative structure which the biblical text has received from those who formed and used it as sacred scripture.[2]

The crucial methodological issues concerning the canonical approach are outlined by contrasting it with other critical methods. Childs explains that the canonical study shares with several other literary critical methods the concern to do justice to the integrity of the text itself, but differs by interpreting the biblical text in relation to a community of faith and practice: “The canonical approach is concerned to understand the nature of the theological shape of the text rather than to recover an original literary or aesthetic unity.” The canonical method differs also sharply from the “kerygmatic exegesis”[3] in the sense that a theological point must not be related to an original intention in a reconstructed historical context, but rather to its function in the final form of the biblical text. The canonical study is also different from the traditio-critical approach in the way it evaluates the history of the text’s formation. Canonical study assumes the normative status of the final form of the text, while the traditio-historical criticism tries to recover the historical growth of the text. Childs feels that contrasting approaches are missing the mark and do not fully understand the canonical proposal.[4]

The canonical approach insists upon the final form of the Scripture, which reflects a history of encounter between God and Israel. The final form of the text alone bears witness to the full history of revelation. The witness of the experience with God lies not in the recovery of the historical process. It is only in the final form of the biblical text that the full effect of this revelatory history can be perceived. However, early stages in the development of the biblical text are important, thus to take the canon seriously also means to take the stages of formation seriously. The early stages aid in understanding of the interpreted text, and do not function independently of it. But Childs means that it is still the final form of the text that hermeneutically establishes the peculiar profile of a passage, and any method (e.g. Heilsgeschichte, the historical critical method or philosophical hermeneutics) which seeks to shift the canonical ordering must be resisted.[5]

The Hebrew canon was formed during a long period (beginning in the pre-exilic period) of time as an integral part of the literary process. Basic to this canonical process is that those responsible (editors [Hezekiah’s court], religious groups [Deuteronomic party of Jerusalem], political parties) for the editing of the text did their best to obscure their own identity. The consequence is that the actual process, and the original sociological and historical differences within the nation of Israel, was lost. Thus Israel emerged as a religious community with its identity in the sacred Scripture. One motivation behind the canonical process is that tradition from the past was transmitted in such a way that it would be authoritative and accessible to all future generations of Israel (Deut. 31:9ff.; Ex. 12:14, 26ff). This transmission was not merely a passive channeling of material from one generation to another, but reflects an active hermeneutic that shaped both the oral and written traditions, so that the tradition would not be fixed it in the past, but religiously accessible to future generations. Thus, Childs points out that because the historical critical method has disregarded the canonical shaping, it has found itself unable to bridge the gap between the past and the present. When “decanonizing” the biblical text the interpreter has difficulty applying it to the modern religious context.[6]

Childs explains that one of the most difficult problems of the canonical approach “involves understanding the relationship between the divine initiative in creating Israel’s Scripture and the human response in receiving and transmitting the authoritative Word.” If the active human participation is a necessary feature for correctly understand the text, what then is the relationship between the divine and human of the Bible, between scripture and tradition? Childs concludes, after having briefly reviewed the long and heated controversy (Roman Catholic vs. Protestants) within Christian theology, that “the canonical method is not tied to one narrowly conceived dogmatic stance respecting the problem of scripture and tradition. The approach seeks to work descriptively within a broad theological framework and is open to a variety of different theological formulations.” However, Childs explains that the canonical method runs counter to two theological positions: 1) the position that stresses the divine initiative and rules out the human response to the divine word as theologically significant, and 2) the position that understands the formation of the Bible as purely human (e.g. Israel’s search for self-identity).[7]

The approach that Childs have undertaken has been described as “canonical criticism”. Childs himself is not satisfied with this term, because that turns the canonical approach into another historical critical technique. Rather, Childs wants to establish a stance from which the Bible can be read as sacred scripture. Negatively this means a relativization of the historical critical method, and positively it challenges the interpreter to look at the biblical text in its received form and to discern its function for an community of faith. The canonical shaping draws the boundaries within which the exegetical task is to be carried out. The effect is two fold: 1) The canonical method sets limits on the exegetical task by taking seriously the traditional parameters; 2) The method liberates from the stifling effect of academic scholasticism. In sum, Childs says, “the canon establishes a platform from which exegesis is launched rather than a barrier by which creative activity is restrained.”[8]

[1] Ibid., 71.
[2] Ibid., 72–74.
[3] This method attempted to discover the central intention of a writer, usually by means of a formulae or themes, which intention was then linked to a reconstruction of a historical situation which allegedly evoked that given response.
[4] Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 74–75.
[5] Ibid., 75–77.
[6] Ibid., 77–79.
[7] Ibid., 80–82
[8] Ibid., 82–83.